Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000

It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

Yeah, he's against the government initiating violence. It doesn't mean he thinks that the government's existence is initiation of force. The government can exist and only do defensive things. He gives several (though flawed) examples of this (eg. America before 1913).

And people shouldn't blow Dr. Paul's mentioning of "voluntarism" out of proportion. It's not code for anarchy. Why would he talk about the proper role of government and at the same time advocate statelessness? Libertarians shouldn't be the ones distorting history. Paul was not an anarchist.

Well...in Revolutionary Catalonia, there were anarchist politicians...so perhaps he is indeed an anarcho-capitalist who just isn't an Agorist (in other words, he believes in using politics to minimize and ultimately abolish the state).

Come on Ron, you can't hang around Rothbard and Rockwell all of those years and not be one.

QC - the definition of government could be debated. Either way, he's most certainly at least a minarchist. And if he doesn't want to say he's an anarchist, he certainly points any listeners in that direction. If a young kid hears the speech and decides all initiation of aggression is bad, if he learns in a year or so that defense must also be aggressive due to taxation, he will already have this basis of the NAP and convert more easily. I can imagine this being RP's parting gift to the libertarian movement.

Anyway, even if he is just a minarchist - DUDE! There's a minarchist in the government! Not for long, but he's there.